Region's Parks Are a Source of Pride, but Can There Be Too ... · 7/19/2008 · File: Macintosh HD:Users:jay:Documents:THC Projects MB:Ejtemai Projects:Bethesda Old

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/06/AR2007070600920.html

File: Macintosh HD:Users:jay:Documents:THC Projects MB:Ejtemai Projects:Bethesda Old Gtwn Fairmont :zoning Bethesda proj:R.Lewis Parks+Retail7jul07.doc

Region's Parks Are a Source of Pride, but Can There Be Too Much Green?

There is no better time to appreciate the extraordinary

greenness of Washington than the week of the Fourth of

July, when our thousands of acres of public parks are the

site for countless picnics, cookouts and outdoor games.

Covered by diverse and abundant vegetation, parks

constitute a wonderful amenity for residents and visitors.

Parks are also ecologically beneficial. Think about all the

rainwater retained and soaked up by parklands instead of

running off into gutters and storm drains. Contemplate all

the carbon absorbed and oxygen emitted by park vegetation

through photosynthesis. Consider how much hotter

Washington would be in summer without the city's

deciduous tree canopy providing shade and heat-absorbing

transpiration.

Parks can take many forms. Some are maintained in a

natural state. Others are designed as gardens, with carefully

chosen trees, shrubs and flowers, along with lawns, scenic

pathways, terraces, walls, pavilions and water features.

Others combine natural and formal landscapes.

Public parks can accommodate organized recreation with

ball fields, tennis and basketball courts, children's

playgrounds, and tot lots.

Shaping the CityBy Roger K. Lewis, Washington Post Columnist

Saturday, July 7, 2007; Page F05



Because much of this region's extensive parklands, especially those associated with stream and river valleys, are contiguous and

interconnected, they also provide habitat and natural migration corridors for wildlife: white-tail deer, red foxes, coyotes, raccoons,

possums, chipmunks, gray and black squirrels, an occasional black bear, and scores of bird species.

As development sprawls ever farther, Washington's unique parkland enables wildlife to expand its habitat in the opposite direction.

That habitat includes tree-lined roadways and yards in urban and suburban neighborhoods. Nowadays, deer not only wander wooded

city parks, they routinely exit the woods to graze only a few feet from the edges of busy city streets, the same streets crossed

periodically by foxes, raccoons and humans.

Outside of cities and suburbs, large tracts of land may be set aside for agrarian and landscape conservation or for watershed protection.

These, too, are parks, but they are not usually available for intense recreational development and use. This rationale, for example,

underlies Montgomery County's agricultural preserve.

Is there perhaps too much parkland in Washington?

It would be hard to prove that we have an excess of parks, but not every public park works well. Sometimes they are too big or too

small for their intended functions. They may be poorly maintained, insufficiently lit at night and inadequately supervised. Or they may

be inconveniently located and thus rarely visited.

Park-building opportunities can be lost when jurisdictions require developers to provide minimum amounts of "green space" with new

projects but don't specify how the space is to be designed and used. Labeling "green space" on a plan is no guarantee that it will yield

In Bethesda’s Woodmont Triangle the Montgomery County Council passed courageous new rules (Council Resolution 15-1316,

January 31, 2006) that make it possible to accomplish exactly what Roger Lewis is writing so eloquently about in this column.

By eliminating minimum lot size and enabling clustering (transferring density) to preserve (i.e. improve) some existing buildings

and by creating an Amenity Fund the tools now exist.

However, staff now has to be the “master developer” of the Woodmont Triangle. Painting a picture and telling a story is the key.

Government’s job is big picture / long term stuff. The public realm is the context within which the private sector acts — as

developers, owners, tenants and visitors.



an attractive, functioning park. Such space frequently ends up as little more than residual acreage surrounding buildings and surface

parking lots.

To be successful, an urban park must be truly inhabited by the community it serves, inviting community use with its favorable

location, accessibility, size, configuration and character.

Happily, Washington has few dysfunctional parks.

However, one park policy affecting the nation's capital is questionable. Much of the District's Potomac River frontage is federal

parkland. Consequently, the city and its architecture have been unable to engage the Potomac shoreline at appropriate places, where

concentrated waterfront development would enhance both the cityscape and riverside landscape.

In fact, Washington needs more venues, other than vegetated river banks, where people can sit, dine, socialize and stroll near the

water's edge. This is possible in only a few places now -- Old Town Alexandria, Georgetown and the District's Southwest waterfront.

Fortunately, change is in the air. Redevelopment of the District's Southwest and Southeast waterfronts, further development of the

Georgetown waterfront, and new development planned for both sides of the Anacostia River promise to expand the number of

structured riverside destinations. Maybe the National Park Service can be persuaded to relax its rules and allow additional, well-

located concessions to be erected on federal parkland abutting the river.

Last week, the Wall Street Journal reported that U.S. cities are spending billions of dollars to build parks "at a rate not seen for 100

years." The article observed that park development in numerous cities -- Seattle, Minneapolis, Chicago, New York, Atlanta, Houston -

- is motivated by economic, marketing, environmental, symbolic and, of course, functional considerations.

Reading the Wall Street Journal article, I had boastful thoughts: These cities aspire to catch up with metropolitan Washington. How nice to

already be one of the best.

Government’s failure to do the big-picture long-term stuff right — like recognizing that the “project” is the Woodmont

Triangle, NOT individual buildings — results in extremely costly, time-wasting micro-management and re-inventing wheels.

The result is failure to serve the public interest in EVERY arena!

Think Veteran’s Park



Roger K. Lewis is a practicing architect and professor emeritus of architecture at the University of Maryland.© 2007 The Washington Post Company

The synergy between an urban park and surrounding retail is profound. The Woodmont Triangle is indeed fortunate to

have Bethesda Row to learn from -- and in particular, the park in front of Barnes & Noble as a superlative example.

The mistake being made right now at 4900 Fairmont Avenue is inexcusable. Not only does no one need a wider sidewalkacross the street from the Woodmont Triangle Town Square, this actually does harm in several dimensions!

* see my spreadsheet - 3a) Public cost of on-site vs Amenity Fund 4900 Fairmont.pdf

Just the direct economic cost to the public is losing a $400,000 up-front contribution to the Amenity Fund, and then anannual loss of more than $515,000 per year (which will grow every year!)

The impact on adjoining retail businesses adds consiberably to these losses.